Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kerry A. Shirts

Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

Recommended Posts

BCSpace has claimed Mormonism and science are completely compatible. I sincerely disagree and BCSpace has agreed to debate the evidence for and against said proposition. Here is my first, and by no means not the only, evidence against compatibility.

Evolution for starters is not about design or purpose. There is no direction, no intent, and no reason, it just happens. There is absolutely no god or gods directiing their creation via the means of evolution either. There is your first incompatibility with religion. Remember, Mormonism as the "only true religion" has taken a NEUTRAL stance on this issue. Haven't you ever wondered at such a weird take? Here God Almighty himself, the source and fountain and cause of eternal truth, of verifiable truth hasn't given the truth on this most important subject? And all the while evolution continues to show itself WITH EVIDENCE as completely certifiable, while creation has now been completely explained as natural occurrences with no supernatural add on hypothesis even needed? Remember you said Mormonism and science are compatible, but Mormonisms' stance on evolution is a cop out. Neutrality is NOT compatible with the evidence and proofs of evolution, it is a cop out.

Share this post


Link to post

Science is God.

All Science will eventually grow and discover God. Look no further then the fact that Science is always changing. What once was a correct theory has now been overtaken by another discovery. That will only continue until that day when Science discovers god. It is my opinion that Science will draw closer and closer to God as the millennium is closer and closer. Which will not happen for a very long time.

My .000001 cent

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry, what evidence do you have that "evolution...is not about design or purpose"; that there is "no directino, no intent, and no reason". Do you have any support for this position or is it just your opinion?

Neutrality has nothing to do with compatibility; you know better than to state some so illogical. It takes no stand, you may dislike that position, but the position is legitimite and does not speak to anything.

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry, what evidence do you have that "evolution...is not about design or purpose"; that there is "no directino, no intent, and no reason". Do you have any support for this position or is it just your opinion?

Neutrality has nothing to do with compatibility; you know better than to state some so illogical. It takes no stand, you may dislike that position, but the position is legitimite and does not speak to anything.

Gee, where to start? Richard Dawkins says so, Stephen Jay Gould says so, Isaac Asimov says so, Victor J. Stenger says so, Ernst Mayer says so, Douglas Futuyma says so. There is no God behind evolution. This is precisely why Daniel C. Dennett has called Darwin's idea the MOST DANGEROUS (for religion). There is no design, direction or God for evolution. I will find details in all these authors if they are needed. I know this sounds like I am simply appealing to authority. I'm not, even Ken Miller shows the evidences about this.

Edited by Kerry A. Shirts

Share this post


Link to post

Science is God.

All Science will eventually grow and discover God. Look no further then the fact that Science is always changing. What once was a correct theory has now been overtaken by another discovery. That will only continue until that day when Science discovers god. It is my opinion that Science will draw closer and closer to God as the millennium is closer and closer. Which will not happen for a very long time.

My .000001 cent

Science is NOT God. Good grief man, can we keep this on a little bit realistic scale here? Science is a method, not a person in the sky. Evolution and science is NOT about religion, it is about the changes of lifeforms through eons of time. Science won't discover god, because it has no need of that hypothesis. It isn't even looking. It is about understanding our material world, not some fairytale made up thing floating around in the sky somewhere. Science is grounded in observable reality, not tissues of non-evidential faith.

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry S Shirts:

You are conflating the tool with the tool user.

Sorry, I honestly am not trying to be dense, I am not sure what you are saying here....... can you clarify for me. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry, what evidence do you have that "evolution...is not about design or purpose"; that there is "no directino, no intent, and no reason". Do you have any support for this position or is it just your opinion?

Neutrality has nothing to do with compatibility; you know better than to state some so illogical. It takes no stand, you may dislike that position, but the position is legitimite and does not speak to anything.

Neutrality is an admission that you DON'T KNOW what to make of it. Interestingly Joseph Smith certainly was told that ALL churches were wrong in his day......... why won't God straighten us out about ALL the sciences TODAY? Neutral?! Either it IS or it is NOT right and good science and a basis of material reality to life. Is that so hard for God to say so about to the church today? It is seriously suspicious when a church claiming and members believing that God is in daily communication with his prophets that they don't do like Joseph Smith and ask about it, since it was obviously the DEVIL'S doctrine to Joseph Fielding Smith, an earlier prophet. Today that isn't taught. But it isn't agreed that it is right either. Science is obviously o.k. with God since he hasn't told the brethren to quit using television, radio, internet, satellites, etc. for discussing religion. I mean, it's not the Spirit of God communicating with the saints daily through prayer that all this KNOWLEDGE is coming from, but the scientific use of scientific technology that is providing the world with knowledge these days. So God doesn't appear to be anti-science per se. WHY neutral on evolution?! I suspect deep down, where our ghosts haunt us and we fear to tread we all know why, but refuse to say........

Share this post


Link to post

just like we argue about the 'Facts' of church history here,it is best to read the actual sources before commiting to a stance. The studies and experiments that show such positive 'proof' of evolution rarely live up to the sound bites and headlines presented with them.Interpretation is the name of the game in science as well as history.

Edited by blackstrap

Share this post


Link to post

Science is NOT God. Good grief man, can we keep this on a little bit realistic scale here? Science is a method, not a person in the sky. Evolution and science is NOT about religion, it is about the changes of lifeforms through eons of time. Science won't discover god, because it has no need of that hypothesis. It isn't even looking. It is about understanding our material world, not some fairytale made up thing floating around in the sky somewhere. Science is grounded in observable reality, not tissues of non-evidential faith.

You appear to be lacking in the critical thinking department.

If God created everything, then indeed, anything discovered about the material world is God. Is that really hard to understand?

Share this post


Link to post

. Science is grounded in observable reality, not tissues of non-evidential faith.

Let's see, dark matter,dark energy, prescient electrons, the origins of life.. yup.. tissues of non-evidential faith.

The road to hades is paved with good intentions...the libraries of the universities of the world are filled with the falsified theories of scientists.

When you conflate the science involved with TV,microwaves,medicine etc. with the fanciful speculations about the untestable past or future,you do both science and philosophy a disservice.

Share this post


Link to post

Couldn't it be argued that there is a difference between what is being observed, and the theories that explain what is being observed? There is a difference between evolution and the theory produced by observation that it is 100% random. Science is evolving and as more information becomes available, it is reasonable to conclude that we will get closer and closer to the truth and therefore, closer to a compatibility between science and religion. One example I often bring up is the concept of the speed of light. Scientists are very reluctant to consider that there is a speed greater than light. Of course, if this position is true then our religion is in serious trouble. But on the other hand, there are scientists that dispute this, even though it has been effectively proven based on our limited ability to study the phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry,

You might enjoy the work of Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge. His book Life's Solutions: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (Cambridge University Press, 2003) argues that (1) life is unlikely and (2) evolution is somewhat predictable, with human (or humanoids) being inevitable. He covers similar ground in his 2005 Boyle Lecture entitled "Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation" (can be downloaded here) and "Evolution and the Inevitability of Intelligent Life," The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

I found his views insightful. Another study has found that the "genetic mutations that produced bigger and more complex brains spread in the population very quickly. This led ultimately to a dramatic "speeding up" of evolution in genes controlling brain size and complexity." One of the leading authors of the study said, "The making of the large human brain is not just the neurological equivalent of making a large antler. Rather, it required a level of selection that's unprecedented...Our study offers the first genetic evidence that humans occupy a unique position in the tree of life. Simply put, evolution has been working very hard to produce us humans." The study is S. Dorus, E.J. Vallender, P.D. Evans, J.R. Anderson, S.L. Gilbert, M. Mahowald, G.J. Wyckoff, C.M. Malcom & B.T. Lahn, "Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens," Cell 119:1027 (2004).

The brain that evolution produced automatically seeks patterns, intelligent agents, and purpose in its environment. This is an innate capability that is found in the earliest child development. See Justin L. Barrett, Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief (Free Press, 2012).

Of course, necessary conditions for life may be so strict that the forms of life are necessarily limited in scope. The evolution of the human brain may be unprecedented in its genetic acceleration simply due to a high amount of advantageous adaptations that were simply coincidental. Brains capable of detecting purposeful patterns and intelligent agents in nature do not prove those patterns or agents to be real.

Yet, maybe there is something more to it. Just a thought.

Edited by WalkerW

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry, what evidence do you have that "evolution...is not about design or purpose"; that there is "no directino, no intent, and no reason". Do you have any support for this position or is it just your opinion?

There are games that are enjoyed because of their randomness. They still have purpose and design even if there is no 'direction' applied to them.

Share this post


Link to post

Gee, where to start? Richard Dawkins says so, Stephen Jay Gould says so, Isaac Asimov says so, Victor J. Stenger says so, Ernst Mayer says so, Douglas Futuyma says so. There is no God behind evolution. This is precisely why Daniel C. Dennett has called Darwin's idea the MOST DANGEROUS (for religion). There is no design, direction or God for evolution. I will find details in all these authors if they are needed. I know this sounds like I am simply appealing to authority. I'm not, even Ken Miller shows the evidences about this.

Gee, men say so; boy, that does it for me. Men said it and therefore I must accept it. Well, DUH, I should learned this long ago. Now, let's get a little bit more serious; PROVE IT. I don't need opinions, I need proof. You know the empirical method that science is built upon.

Share this post


Link to post

Interestingly Joseph Smith certainly was told that ALL churches were wrong in his day.........

How long did it take after the authorized church disappeared from the earth for this to occur?

Share this post


Link to post

Which will not happen for a very long time.

Got any scientific proof for that?

/Juuuuuust kidding. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

The aforementioned findings in cognitive psychology and neuroscience remind me of Calvin's sensus divinitatis (sense of divinity). Philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues in Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press, 2000) that sensus divinitatis is properly basic, much like the belief in the existence of other minds. Plantinga has also made a rather famous evolutionary argument against naturalism. To simplify it, assuming our brain is merely the product of random mutations and natural selection, there is no reason to assume that our cognitive faculties are reliable when forming beliefs. The truthfulness of these beliefs become irrelevant compared to their evolutionary advantage. If naturalism is true, the naturalist cannot justify trust in his own cognitive faculties. If theism is true (mainly of the Abrahamic sort), then one is created in the image of God with the capacity for true knowledge.

I find the argument thought-provoking. While he has published the argument in a couple books, he has an article that was republished in Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith, ed. Francis S. Collins (HarperOne, 2010) entitled "Naturalism Defeated."

Share this post


Link to post

Gee, where to start? Richard Dawkins says so, Stephen Jay Gould says so, Isaac Asimov says so, Victor J. Stenger says so, Ernst Mayer says so, Douglas Futuyma says so. There is no God behind evolution.

I don't know about the others but Dawkins is an avid atheist. De has denounced God through and through and he's supposed to be the smartest man in the world. There is absolutely no way you can conclude that there is no God behind evolution. None. There is not even a scietific experiment or test possible to make such a conclusion. Evolution in and of itself is theory. Sure there's some proof but hoardly such that leads an observer to any concrete conclusion. Macro evolution conclusions falls apart. As they should for it is science afterall. Anyone who claims absolute knowledge from scientific experiments has made the greateast anti-scientific claim possible.

Share this post


Link to post

There is your first incompatibility with religion. Remember, Mormonism as the "only true religion" has taken a NEUTRAL stance on this issue. Haven't you ever wondered at such a weird take? Here God Almighty himself, the source and fountain and cause of eternal truth, of verifiable truth hasn't given the truth on this most important subject? And all the while evolution continues to show itself WITH EVIDENCE as completely certifiable, while creation has now been completely explained as natural occurrences with no supernatural add on hypothesis even needed? Remember you said Mormonism and science are compatible, but Mormonisms' stance on evolution is a cop out. Neutrality is NOT compatible with the evidence and proofs of evolution, it is a cop out.

You're just trying to dramatize this thread. Evolution is a "most important subject" for God to reveal truth? Good grief. It's far more important to know that i should forgive my enemies and do my home teaching than to learn all there is to learn about evolution. God has never dictated science to man that I'm aware of. He may reveal things of the cosmos to Moses and of "intelligence" to Joseph Smith but this is not dictorial, only things pertaining to the glory of God and His nature and the nature of man (sons of God). God has always allowed man to discover science at will. I'm grateful for the capability God has given me to learn science but don't equate something as trivial as evolution as something so important that God *must* reveal to man what man should know about it.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints does affirm that Adam of the Bible was the first human male on earth andthat Eve of the Bible was the first human female on the earth. That these two were created by a divine being for diivine purposes and that the entire human race is directly descended from them. The LDS Church does not claim how Adam and Eve were made so if by evolution than so be it. If by sudden amd rapid creation, so be it. Such knowledge has no bearing upon our salvation, nor tot he glory of God. ir is far more important to know *why* god created man than to know *how* God created man. Not that anything should prohibit anyone from studying the mechanics of human origin; just keep the importance of the *why*, not the *how* in terms of what God should and has revealed to man.

Share this post


Link to post

Science is NOT God. Good grief man, can we keep this on a little bit realistic scale here? Science is a method, not a person in the sky. Evolution and science is NOT about religion, it is about the changes of lifeforms through eons of time. Science won't discover god, because it has no need of that hypothesis. It isn't even looking. It is about understanding our material world, not some fairytale made up thing floating around in the sky somewhere. Science is grounded in observable reality, not tissues of non-evidential faith.

"Science' is "scientia" in Latin which means "knowledge". All knowledge, no matter what aspect of life you are referring to, starts with faith. Just like comng unto God. Science departs from God's truths since science requires observable facts whereas knowledge of God (and from God) is much more based upon "spiritual confirmation". And so be it. This is, however, a good reason to avoid your opening post in attempting to get God to reveal to man the nature of evolution. I know you were arguing that the two are separate and that's why BCSpace was wrong but your claim fails regardless of the intent of it. Science is very compatible to LDS theology for LDS theology takes a neutral postion regarding science and it is extremely rare that the LDS church would make an absolute claim on something regardless of what science says.

There's a great article I once read in Pajamas Media regarding the nature of science and corrupting science for polticial gain. I think it'll play well here but I cannot look for it now. I'm very tired and in a few hours I must raise and go forth and celebrate Pioneer Day. That's a lot more important than debating evolution.

Take care and God bless, Mr. Shirts.

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post

Got any scientific proof for that?

/Juuuuuust kidding. ;)

Suddenly

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry A. Shirts:

Sorry, I honestly am not trying to be dense, I am not sure what you are saying here....... can you clarify for me. Thanks.

You are one of the least dense on this board.

If I use a hammer to build a house am I a hammer? Evolution is simply the tool God used to create everything.

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry A. Shirts:

You are one of the least dense on this board.

If I use a hammer to build a house am I a hammer? Evolution is simply the tool God used to create everything.

O

.K., thanks.....now I get what you were meaning. I have to go mow the folks lawn for them, I shall return in a few hours to continue here.

Share this post


Link to post

"Science' is "scientia" in Latin which means "knowledge". All knowledge, no matter what aspect of life you are referring to, atarts with faith. Just like comng unto God. Science departss from God's truths since science requires observable facts whereas knowledge of God (and from God) uis much more based upon "spiritual confirmation". And so be it. This is, however, a good reason to avoid your opening post in attempting to get God to reveal to man the nature of evolution. I know you were arguing that the two are separate and that's why BCSpace was wrong but your claim fails regardless of the intent of it. Science is very compatible to LDS theology for LDS theology takesa neutral postion regarding science and it is extremely rare that the LDS church would make an absolute claim on something regardless of what science says.

There's a great article I once read in Pajamas Media regarding the nature of science and corrupting science for polticial gain. I think it'll play well here but I cannot look for it now. I'm very tired and in a few hours I must raise and go forth and celebrate Pioneer Day. That's a lot more important than debating evolution.

Take care and God bless, Mr. Shirts.

Science discovers truths because it does not use God as one of its hypotheses. It doesn't depart from God's truth, it observes, collects, sorts, arranges, and interprets data from the physical world and thus comes to truth so far as is testable and in evidence. It has fundamentally NOTHING to do with God in any manner, so it can't depart from a truth from God.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...